Wikipedia:Peer review/The May Pamphlet/archive1

The May Pamphlet

This article is the best resource for the topic on the Internet and I've exhausted all the sources I wanted to cite. Looking for any suggestions or feedback before taking it to WP:FAC. Appreciate your time! czar 20:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

@Czar: I am so sorry that it has taken this long for someone to review this for FAC. This is not how this is supposed to be, and I hope you are still looking to bring this to FAC if you think it fulfills the criteria. As this is a PR, you are welcome to seek out specific editors to review the article, or post a request on Wikiproject talk pages to get more responses. I hope that you will look at some other PRs in the Template:FAC peer review sidebar and help with the WP:FAC backlog, especially because you have a lot of FAs and great knowledge of the FAC process to share.

Here are some comments below:

• The image should have alt text, per MOS:ALT.
• "written by Paul Goodman in May and early June 1945." From what I understand in the article, the May Pamphlet is a collection of six essays, written in May and early June 1945. The essays were originally published separately but were compiled together as The May Pamphlet in 1946. I think the lede sentence should mention when it was published, perhaps something like, "The May Pamphlet is an anarchist pamphlet published in 1946, comprised of essays written by Paul Goodman in May and early June 1945."

• I am not sure how I feel about the quotes for natural powers and drawing the line: it might be contrary MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Perhaps the text should say something like, "how to summon a phenomenon he termed as "natural powers" to invent solutions to social dilemmas." Or something similar, to indicate that these are terms that Goodman is redefining.
  • re: the lede, the essays were published in 1945, which I think is the part that matters (and how sources discuss it). Even if they weren't compiled until 1946, virtually no one read that edition or had much interest until the 1960s anyway, so I think those are the most salient parts to mention. The ersatz quotes are in a sentence that begins with an attribution to Goodman, so they should be okay, but I've rephrased anyway. czar 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• "an ideological delineation beyond which a libertarian (synonymous with "anarchist")" This is synonymous in Goodman's belief, but this statement makes it seem like Wikivoice is stating that they are synonymous. Maybe something like, "an ideological delineation beyond which a libertarian (which Goodman wrote was synonymous with an anarchist)" This also removed the quotes around anarchist, per MOS:SCAREQUOTES
  • re: synonymous in wikivoice, that's the idea. It links to definition of anarchism and libertarianism because "libertarian" is a term used prominently throughout the work but it refers to something different than post-1980s Americans understand it to be. The rest of the world (and the U.S. in the time of this pamphlet's publication) uses "libertarian" as a synonym for leftist anarchism, not free-market economic libertarianism. Does that need to be said explicitly? I considered a footnote but I thought the parenthetical would be sufficient. czar 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• "His early anarchist short essays from May 1945," were there essays in the May Pamphlet from early June?
• The second and third paragraphs of Overview seem to be an analysis of the themes and contents of the pamphlet. I am surprised that these are not placed in their own section like "Themes" or "Reception" after "Contents". I think this may need to be moved to later in the article.
• "(1) tools with which an individual can resist a society's coercive conditions and (2) the possibility of summoning "natural powers" to invent solutions to social dilemmas." I don't think the numbers are needed here.
  • Maybe not, but it's a knotty sentence (a complex subject) and I think it helps the reader czar 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "find their natural powers prone to coercive co-option" This feels very much like jargon, and I cannot figure out what this is trying to tell me. I think this sentence needs to be simplified.
• "acts of passion/emotion" -> acts of passions or emotion
• "In his characteristic, reformist avoidance of revolutionary pronouncements," According to who? Considering that this paragraph only has one source, this opinionated statement feels definitive and outside of Wikivoice.
• The first essay is given two paragraphs of explanation in the article, while the second, third and fourth are given a sentence or two each, then one paragraph for the fifth and sixth essay. Why the difference in length for an explanation?
  • It's proportionate to their coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The first two essays are, apparently, far better known. Should it be covered differently? czar 03:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• "While themes from the May Pamphlet—decentralization, peace, social psychology, youth liberation—would recur throughout his later body of work, his social criticism would focus on practical application rather than theoretical concerns, like that of unanimity." This can go in a themes section.
• "Goodman wrote The May Pamphlet in May and early June 1945, with the exception of "Revolution, Sociolatry, and War", written in October." So if an essay was written in October, this needs to be mentioned in the lede and the overview. If possible, the article should describe why this October essay was included in this pamphlet, as it is an outlyer.
• "brought Goodman into the limelight" reword per MOS:IDIOM. Maybe, "As Growing Up Absurd increased Goodman's popularity as a social critic,"
• "A German translation of the May Pamphlet (Anarchistisches Manifest) was published in 1977." Any other translations? Why only mention the German one?
  • It's the only translation I've seen mentioned in sources. czar 03:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The May Pamphlet was Goodman's most significant contribution to anarchist theory." This is a pretty extraordinary claim. Do multiple sources support this opinion? If not, the article should mention whose opinion it is. If they do, the article should include more than one source.
• In general, there were some sections, especially when describing the themes and contents, which were a little dense to get through for me. It might be possible to simplify this language.

Those are my thoughts after an initial readthrough. Please ping if you have any follow-up comments or questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Z1720! re: splitting out a section on "Themes", my read was that this information is necessary preface for understanding the topic, prior to introducing specific Contents. Do you disagree? An alternative would be to just rename the "Overview" section as "Themes", or to combine those introductory paragraphs into "Contents". czar 03:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support splitting this section. The reader needs to understand the political and historical context in which the text was written in, and the development of the text before the contents are explained. However, any analysis of the actual text should be placed after the explanation of the content. This is how I see other literary FAs structured. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As a political tract more than literature, the subject has more in common with philosophy FAs The Age of Reason or A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in that it needs some historical context but otherwise the synopsis is not necessarily distinct from a discussion of the work's themes. I'll try to pry the latter apart a bit but I'm not sure it's worth it. czar 06:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I split out the Themes/Analysis section czar 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Grapple X

A very interesting subject. Here are my notes:

• Some nonstandard formatting here which is likely to be challenged at FAC; things like "The major themes of The May Pamphlet are (1)" could be reworded to do away with the bracketed numbers; similarly I feel the list of essays as numbered points could be presented in a single prose paragraph ("The May Pamphlet is divided into six essays: ...", with the notes on earlier publication included here).
  • Is there a MOS section on this? If not, I think the listing is in best service of the reader. List six long titles in prose and the eye skips over it vs. enumerate six items and the eye can follow. czar 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• There is a reference not currently being used--King, Richard H. (1972) is not being pointed to by any citations. Does it contain any information not currently used in the article? If so it creates the impression of a lack of comprehensiveness, but if it offers nothing new then it should be removed from the list.
• "an ideological delineation beyond which a libertarian (synonymous with "anarchist") should refuse to conform or cooperate": This feels like it may take more explanation here; certainly in the 21st century these terms are not widely seen as synonymous, though they share obvious overlaps. The article being piped to here, Definition of anarchism and libertarianism, goes into some detail re: differences which are perhaps glossed too quickly here, and I would suggest this bracketed aside perhaps be extended as an endnote. The source Cohn 2009 in the latter article specifies ""'libertarianism' ... a term that, until the mid-twentieth century, was synonymous with "anarchism" per se", which obviously covers the timeline of publication here but provides a modern reader with context.
• Some mixing of singular/plural throughout; the essays are plural, the pamphlet singular, but instances like "The May Pamphlet was Goodman's most significant contribution to anarchist theory. They were both his first explicitly political works..." appear.
  • re: singular/plural, in American English, the May Pamphlet is singular and the May Pamphlet's individual essays are plural. Any ambiguous examples, like the one you pointed out, are ones I should have clarified in copy editing, if you see any others. czar 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• All I'm seeing for now. If this does move to FAC give me a message and I can take another look at it but it looks to be in good shape. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: to ensure they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply

Closing note: I am closing this PR due to inactivity. A new PR can be opened when the above comments are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been  Working on the article—just haven't responded here. Appreciate the review and hoping to address it over this holiday break. czar 18:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Grapple X, thank you both for your comments. I've been poking at this periodically on- and offline for the past year, so grateful to get comments whenever they come. :) I believe I've addressed your points in the text apart from responses/caveats I'll put here. If you have time, would love to know what you think. Best wishes in the New Year, czar 00:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)